Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffJonathan Aizen Date: Apr 24, 2003 11:01am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: shows better served as tar files? (and one-at-a-time also supported)

i think it's a cool idea, but if we're going to still allow one-at-a-time, then we've got double disk consumption on the servers.

the download client i'm working on will allow directories to be downloaded as a "package", allow resumption. i'm aiming for beta first week in may, and release 1.0 in second week of may.

there's another problem with tar files: the user will need twice the amount of disk space for a concert. since these shows are already compressed, here's the effect: let's say you want to download a 1.1gb concert because the tar needs to be uncompressed. the tar file will be just about 1.1gb, then the decompressed files would also be 1.1gb, requiring a total of 2.2gb. for users like me who have just little disk space this wouldn't work.

just my two cents. what do others think?

This post was modified by Jonathan Aizen on 2003-04-24 18:01:19

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Erich Date: Apr 24, 2003 12:37pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: shows better served as tar files? (and one-at-a-time also supported)

im all for downloading shows in one shot, since it would make things a lot easier to think about. Since you guys are considering making a client for the LMA, then maybe you can also create your own file type. Say tr2002-10-31.lma was a compressed archive of the Tim Reynolds show of that date, and your client would find a logical way of unpacking it to prevent the senario Jon mentioned of taking double space after compression.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or Staffbrewster Date: Apr 24, 2003 4:52pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: shows better served as tar files? (and one-at-a-time also supported)

We would not need to store tar'ed and untar'ed version: just the tar'ed version and there is a cgi script that allows a tar file to be pulled apart at runtime rather than storing it untar'ed.

I am all for a download client. if we can use the browser that might be a good standard alternative.

also, with mirroring and freecache (and I believe bittorrent) it is helpful to have one big file. I have not done the analysis, but I would imagine most downloaders download a full show rather than a single track (especially because they are named with the show sequence rather than the title).

my 2 cents.

-brewster

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffJonathan Aizen Date: Apr 24, 2003 10:08pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: shows better served as tar files? (and one-at-a-time also supported)

since we would not need to duplicate files on the server end, i think this could be great.

one question: since a cgi is used to pull apart the tar file, what about ftp downloaders?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or Staffbrewster Date: Apr 25, 2003 12:53am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: shows better served as tar files? (and one-at-a-time also supported)


I would think ftp downloaders would just download the whole tar file. ftp downloaders would not see the individual songs. that is a downside. I dont know how big a downside.

-brewster